I like the hydrogen and oxygen example. Also just the idea of something changing states, like we know that a solid cannot do things a liquid or a gas can, yet some objects can exist in each of those states under different conditions. it seems to me therefore it’s not unreasonable to maintain a curiosity that perhaps brains and neurons have a sort of “state” property too. and in certain states suddenly something like “free will” could be occurring. also. because it’s fresh on the cultural mind, things like the three body problem, how we just cannot predict how things will behave. But I know “unpredictable” is not he same as “free” but.. interesting to me nonetheless

Although our past and current social, moral, and ethical contexts shape our decision-making, the notion of free will implies that we maintain the ability to choose with such factors influencing our choice. We consider internal emotions and thoughts when making decisions. For example, deciding what to have for dinner involves weighing health considerations, emotions, and other influences. While conflicting factors may arise, ultimately, we decide what we want for dinner. Occasionally, we may regret our choice, influencing our next dinner decision. 😊

Great talk.... thanks Mr Alan leshner...

@gunner17470

27 күн бұрын

And thanks Robert - a super joust of reason.

Free will is the gift humankind has been given that allows each being to freely choose their ideas and what they wish to believe or not believe. Our ability, through the choices we make, "to create new circumstances and environment, relationships, achievement or failures, prosperity or poverty." There is no way that man may escape what he thinks, says or does [i.e., the fruits of his free will]-for he is born of the Divine Creative Consciousness power and is likewise creative in his imagination.

Love your show, as always. I envy you getting to have these great discussions with so many different brilliant people. One thing to add to this discussion is that predetermination is not necessarily the result of there being no free will. I argue (safely, since it's untestable) that the same person presented with exactly the same stimulus in the same moment in spacetime will have a range of responses to that stimulus. And this does not need to be a result of the exercise of free will. I argue that our brains use randomizing processes when making "decisions". In other words, randomness can result in unpredictability even in a universe with no free actors.

@madmax2976

26 күн бұрын

They will say the problem with this is that there is no actual, ontological randomness. We may be ignorant, unable to determine certain things, but in principle it is determined. So while rolling dice may seem random, it's really not.

I like that- "come back in a hundred years and I will give you the answer."

@aiya5777

20 күн бұрын

that's just a wishful thinking🗿 prior to the golden age of science thousands of years ago, philosophers had already been questioning the credibility of free will no progress🤷 scientists came in and joined the chat still no progress🗿

Most events are probably pre deterministic. but part of those related to human decision are subject to consciousness which can never be modeled computationally hence undetermined

@haros2868

26 күн бұрын

Exactly, finally someone with a brain. We dont tey to give free will to something inanimate like a rock or an ai. Ironically, those determinists who try to sound like the most rational and mature, according to their model, humans are the same fundumentally as ai, mechanics. And one day ai will become conscious and kill us all. Plus, if someone is a hard determinist, he must be a hard reductionalist too. And if everything is reducable, including comsciousness, then Consciousnes is a property of matter and not strong Emergence,which is basically panphysism. So to bully the determinists a little bit, they indirectly believe in AGI and panphysism, or comsciousness is an illusion end of the story (eliminatism)

@dr_shrinker

26 күн бұрын

I can bet (model predictions) on whether or not you will lift your leg if you stepped on a hot coal.

@haros2868

26 күн бұрын

@tarekabdelrahman2194 Finally someone with a brain, who doesn't think Consciousnes is algorithmic and computational. Dear determinists, AGI wont kill humanity, and we aren't robots nor our reality is a simulation, what a pity.

@dr_shrinker

26 күн бұрын

@@haros2868determinist are not panpsychists. Rocks are not consciousness because they don’t have DNA, electrochemicals, Neurons, self-replicating molecules, and amino acids …..in short, rocks aren’t alive. I don’t know why you would make such a claim.

@tarekabdelrahman2194

26 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker that is why I said « part »

Free Will - let me see, wasn't that a movie about an Orca. Michael Jackson sang the theme song for the movie.

@SamoaVsEverybody814

27 күн бұрын

When you're a compatiblist, you're not fully free will, just a bit Free Will-y

The body is not mechanical, but quantum mechanical on the smallest scale. This means we, and it, cannot predict what is gonna happen next, and needs to have internal adjustments to cope with this randomness. This means it has inner robustness from deviating inputs (from quantum randomness). This is a buffering, not a mechanism like a clock. It is more like a fluid well with streams going in and going out, thant a mechanical clock, due to have to compensate for the quantum randomness. This means it is not determined by external mechanisms per se, but also by internal composition, its internal design. Its a mix of internal 'rigidity' and external 'flexibility' in random quantum events on the cellular level. Just ranting here

@dr_shrinker

26 күн бұрын

We can’t predict what happens next?! 😅 I have $100 that says if you fall in the pool, you’ll get wet.

@Robinson8491

26 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker That's classical mechanics, not the minute details of the brain which works like quantum mechanics. At least, if you want to get rid of the detrimental argument of Newtonian classical mechanical determinism...which, as your pool example would be, isn't real at that scale. At least if you don't want to support hard determinism. Do you support that, despite the existence of Schrödinger quantum wave function and it's Born rule?

@dr_shrinker

26 күн бұрын

​@@Robinson8491 Schrödinger equation is causal.

@Robinson8491

25 күн бұрын

The time evolution of the probabilitie flux, yes. But what about the mystery of the 'wave function collapse'? That's Borns rule and that is unsolved@@dr_shrinker

@dr_shrinker

24 күн бұрын

⁠@@Robinson8491I subscribe to “Bohmian mechanics” which states quantum mechanics is deterministic; avoiding wave-particle duality and wave function collapse. The thing about quantum physics is there are so many interpretations, that’s the weirdest part of all.

Free will or determinism is all in how you slice and dice it. Looking at the mechanism it's determined. Looking at my feelings about what happens is free will. It's the same phenomenon. Just two different perspectives.

@dr_shrinker

27 күн бұрын

How can your feelings be free? Can you feel happiness at the loss of a loved one? 😢What about hate when looking at a cute puppy?

@UriyahRecords

27 күн бұрын

Bad example, but underneath the two opposing ideas, it appears to be the same process

Free will is universal love - which implies equality. If everything is equal there is nothing to choose between, and this is the definition or pure free will. Your will is not bound by choice, so it is free. Since this doesn't exist in our world then there is no free will. As soon as you add choices to all things being equal, then there is no free will. With choices you become determinstic. The only free choice you have is one between universal love and fear, or all things being equal or inequality - which leads to choices. Is it determined that one will choose universal love, or equality? Probably, because it could be based on right-minded deterministic choices that lead to it.

...having free will, tap either right or left, proves our existing right now in the Multiverse, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...

The problem with the whole debate is that it is mired in 17th century thought. When a complex system models its environment, it is in some real sense responding not to its environment but to its model of the environment. That is very different from the silly billiard ball determinism that some anachronistically cling to but it also isn't the mumbo jumbo evoked by Will.

@skygardener7849

27 күн бұрын

The determinism though(albeit the probabilistic kind which survives quantum mechanics) is still operating in the background. It's not important to the actual contextual understanding of what a particular brain is doing but anything happening at a given moment is owed entirely to the physical configuration of the brain and that configuration inevitably follows from previous configurations. Thinking of the brain as a physical system is not useful to understand how the brain functions within its own context, how it models reality, how emotions can influence that model, how it decides, how it dithers etc. But the brain as physical system is still a fixity. And that's where the inevitability of the future and therefore the illusoriness of the brain's actual control and the genuine ability to forge an alternate future come from

@johnrichardson7629

27 күн бұрын

@@skygardener7849 The determinism that you are leaning so heavily on is precisely what we can't be sure until the mind-body problem is at least largely unraveled. You are saying that since this is how we know things happen in the realm of brute physicality, we can safely assume that this is how things work in the realm of the mental. Maybe it is. But we can't simply assume it. I think the tone of the two people conversing is telling. The interviewer gets increasingly screechy as he tries to jam a round physical peg into an as yet unseen and possibly round hole while the interviewee keeps backing off, as he knows how much we still don't know. The solution to the mind-body problem seems to be light years away and progress seems to be measured in nanometers. This may truly be something our minds aren't equipped to understand. But we don't know that, either. So we'll keep on keeping on.

@dr_shrinker

27 күн бұрын

@@johnrichardson7629some people follow the rabbit hole so far they convince themselves nothing real exists because matter is condensed energy fields. (Funny thing is, no one knows what quantum physics really is, yet use it to argue against determinism) Anyone can debate the fundamental nature of reality by discussing the nature of a quark until the end of time….or argue duality versus materialism ……., but at the end of the day, I’ll bet they’ll flinch in pain if a dentist drills into their molar without numbing; regardless of their sense of willpower. Try exercising your freedom to choose with that sort of condition. That is the power of determinism. Mind is physical. Everything in the universe is physical. A non-physical thing cannot affect physical things. Therefore, thoughts are physical. Physical things affect physical thoughts = physical thoughts affect physical things……..on and on. Pain makes you hurt = hurt makes you flinch = flinch makes you move to avoid pain…… We are just playing tennis with the material world, and energy is the ball. ……From mind to matter and back again.

@johnrichardson7629

26 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker Well, idealism is ridiculous. That much we can agree on. But these rest isn't so easy. Pain: People who have had limbs amputated have reported pain in the limbs that they no longer have. You wander up a trail towards a bridge but run into someone who tells you the bridge is out. So you turn around. Tell me what you think the full materialist account of the causal sequence is here.

@dr_shrinker

26 күн бұрын

@@johnrichardson7629I couldn’t tell you unless I knew all the variables. But in principle, I could if I knew what caused the person to walk and why the bridge was out.

If you think that you make your considered decisions for reasons, and can know what those reasons are, then how can you not be a determinist?

@brothermine2292

27 күн бұрын

Wouldn't that depend on whether you're certain that the source of your reasons is physical & deterministic?

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

27 күн бұрын

*"If you think that you make your considered decisions for reasons, and can know what those reasons are, then how can you not be a determinist?"* ... Yours is a semantic-based argument and nothing more. You're simply extending the scope of the word "reason" beyond its literary meaning and into an imaginary, manufactured ideology. If I choose chocolate over vanilla and the "reason" is because that's the flavor I personally choose, then regardless of my reasoning. it's *STILL* a decision that I made freely on my own. Nobody else is making the decision for me. Nothing forced me to drive to the ice cream store and buy some chocolate ice cream ... or vanilla ... or strawberry ... or none of the above. The fact is that my personal decisions are never truly *determined* until I've already made my choice. And until that point happens, ... it's all subject to change / variation.

@simonhibbs887

27 күн бұрын

@@brothermine2292 Regarding the conscious choice either those reasons are why you made the choice or they are not. If they were then they caused the choice deterministically, if not then your own rationality is an illusion. It’s true there may be unknowable factors behind these reasons appearing in your mind, but if unconscious processes rig the game as to what reasons are present in your mind, then conscious choice is still an illusion.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

27 күн бұрын

*"If you think that you make your considered decisions for reasons, and can know what those reasons are, then how can you not be a determinist?"* ... Yours is a semantic-based argument and nothing more. You're simply extending the scope of the word "reason" beyond its literary meaning and into an imaginary, manufactured ideology. If I choose chocolate over vanilla and the "reason" is because that's the flavor I personally choose, then regardless of my reasoning. it's *STILL* a decision that I made freely on my own. Nobody else is making the decision for me. Nothing forced me to drive to the ice cream store and buy some chocolate ice cream ... or vanilla ... or strawberry ... or none of the above. The fact is that my personal decisions are never truly *determined* until I've already made my choice. And until that point happens, ... it's all subject to change / variation.

@brothermine2292

27 күн бұрын

>simonhibbs887 : It appears you're not considering all possibilities. Reasons may fail to imply a best choice, due to incomplete information or a poorly functioning (irrational) decision-making system, so who can say for sure what completes the decision-making process in those cases? Also, whatever it is that "rigs" the game by supplying reasons (and values) might not be deterministic unconscious processes... how can you prove the source is deterministic if you can't be certain the source is entirely physical? Ethical dilemmas such as the Trolley Dilemma (and its variants) might be good examples to consider, because it's hard to be sure what the best choice is. You can't be certain your reasoning process is entirely rational. You can reach a point where you feel certain that a choice is correct, but unless you can really prove that choice is correct (which is rare), that feeling of certitude is what's decisive, and it's an emotion. Rationality may be an illusion when consciousness isn't, so don't conflate the two. Arguments involving rationality or irrationality appear to me be irrelevant to the question of free will.

maybe causation emerge as subjective experience / awareness similar to H2O molecules emerge as water?

@dr_shrinker

26 күн бұрын

Close. Causation emerges as determined experiences. Causation dissolves when the matter involved, dissolves.

Think of the free will as free-ish will or effective free will, and all issues around free will simply dissolve. If the decision originated inside our body/brain without external coercive influence, that is good enough. The pursuit of the theoretical idea of free will is like people needing the universe to have a purpose so that their life has a purpose. Why does it matter if the universe has a purpose or not for one to make and have a purpose in their own life. That should be good enough. Similarly, the worry about determinism related to free will is only significant, if one is actually a Laplace daemon. But we are clearly not Laplace daemons. Therefore the free will is effectively free and originates in our bodies (when no coercive forces are at play). Thus why worry if free will is not really free if the universe is deterministic or not. For all practical purposes, legal or otherwise what we call free will is effectively free. That is why I suggest to call free will - free-ish will or effective free will or simply effree will (spread the meme). But anyway that is semantic and we could just continue to use free will - and hold people responsible for their actions as long as we understand its nature as described above. The notion of libertarian freewill is hidden in the gap between what a Laplace daemon may know vs. what is possible for us to know when we make decisions. We make moral decisions because there is an implicit coercive force on our decision making based on our knowledge of what society has taught us what is moral. Of course sociopaths ignore that coercion and moral pioneers think for themselves what is moral and make decisions accordingly (when people first realized that slavery was bad) even when the rest of the society thought it was OK. Heck it was there in holy books even. Lastly, we are always constrained by what is possible. I cannot free will myself to get admitted into Harvard Phd program. I am limited by my abilities, desires, life history, economic status and physical laws. BTW we can think of these are implicit coercive forces that constrain our free will anyway. I cannot free will myself to dodge a bullet fired at me at a short range. I think discussions about free will being libertarian or not are much ado about nothing in the end. The real issue is can we hold a competent person responsible for their action for pragmatic purposes.

The issue of Free Will is not in a change in its definition but in acceptance of a particular version of philosophy to which an individual adheres. If an individual adheres to materialism or dualism, there is no place for Free Will - and no place for the Soul, possessing Free Will. That is why I adhere to trialism (search a file StraightTalkPhilosophy). In philosophy (unlike in science) the most fundamental axioms cannot be even verified. For example, solipsism vs. realism cannot be experimentally tested. People accept or reject one of the two only as a matter of their philosophical preferences, beliefs, and practicality.

The mind is the brain. Hmmm, but what if someone were to doubt that the mind is the brain, is it the brain having that doubt? And if so, why is it doubting itself?

@simonhibbs887

23 күн бұрын

A belief is just a description of a state of affairs, and descriptions can be incorrect. In this case the belief is a description of some aspect of the brain, that is stored in some other aspect of the brain. Consider a company database that stores a list of assets owned by the company, which includes an entry for the database itself. That entry could be incorrect, such as the date it was purchased, or the building it's located in, so the database could have information about itself that is wrong.

@williamburts3114

23 күн бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Hmmm, but wouldn't it be the brain that is putting that incorrect entry information into itself? And why doesn't it self-correct itself so such doubt could not happen?

@simonhibbs887

22 күн бұрын

@@williamburts3114 The brain processes the information it receives, and if it gets ambiguous or incorrect information then it is likely to come to incorrect conclusions. You’re basically asking why the database doesn’t correct the entry in itself. There would have to be a mechanism for the brain to get the correct information from somewhere and update itself.

@williamburts3114

22 күн бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 It gets ambiguous or incorrect information from what?

@simonhibbs887

22 күн бұрын

@@williamburts3114 From perceptions and interpretation of those perceptions. The usual way the brain gets information. Or by making stuff up or guessing, and getting it wrong.

If any one wants to understand this phenomenon I suggest them that they should remain completely silent for a day and observe all their thoughts and feelings living admist others.

@JagadguruSvamiVegananda

27 күн бұрын

🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere. The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception. University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”. We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle). Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds. The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated. Cont...

😁 I'm guessing that in a 100 years we will still not be closer to the truth and that's if we're still around, not yet extinct. 😢

I chose to watch this video, and as it became boring, I chose to leave early..

Emergency? 😅

Why does everyone pick on will.

@Sylar-451

26 күн бұрын

cause it's not a logical take on reality for a lot of people

I don't feel I have free will when I can't lose the hundred pounds I need to lose and which I have been trying to lose for decades. I have the "will" to lose them, but can't, despite excluding pizza, pasta, rice, potatoes, pies. There would be no overweight people, alcoholics, gamblers if there were free will. We don't choose our organs, IQ. We are the result of our biology. Can people choose to be gay?

Your thoughts determine the choices you make, but you can't have chosen the very first thought that you ever had, so that means that it can't be you that ultimately chooses what thoughts you have. All the thoughts that you have, and all the choices you make, must ultimately be determined by external factors.

@simonhibbs887

27 күн бұрын

Nevertheless we exist just as much as anything else exists. We are rational causal beings. It’s true we were shaped by external factors, but when we choose, those external factors are not present. We are. Are we not factors ourselves, just as much as any external one?

@dr_shrinker

27 күн бұрын

@@simonhibbs887I disagree but I liked your comment….👍🏻. When we choose those external factors are most definitely present. Earth, the United States, federal government, laws, ethics, beliefs, moral compass…..on and on….those are there.

@simonhibbs887

27 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker I agree we are influenced, but I think the hard determinist argument is often overstated to the point that it essentially claims that we’re just vehicles for external forces. However if that true of us it’s true of anything. Those external forces are physical in the same way that we are physical. We’re just as much part of the causal loop as anything else. What’s important about us is that we are sensate beings, we model and reason about the world around us, we have goals and intentions. Thats what makes us active agents, and I think the hard deterministic position often misses that. To be clear I’m definitely in the determinist camp, it’s just a matter of how we think about it.

@dr_shrinker

27 күн бұрын

⁠@@simonhibbs887I agree with everything but the “active agents” part. It is our memory/awareness/ understanding of other options that gives the illusion of choice. We might feel we could choose otherwise, but that’s unfalsifiable. I “could” choose to avoid eating, but could I really? Some would say yes, but then I would die if I starved myself. In that case, my true choice would be self termination. My argument is much simpler. Can we choose our beliefs? Feelings? Preferences? Thoughts? I maintain that true freedom would mean unhindered choice in every situation. The fact that my feelings are not my own choosing, the fact that conditions aren’t of my own design, and mind is a physical thing…..I would think our will is determined.

@simonhibbs887

26 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker I don’t think “true freedom” in the libertarian fee will sense is coherent though. We can’t be free if who we are. Do we have a specific state as beings with particular needs, desires and cognitive abilities? If so, and these define us, what does it even mean to be free of those?

Free to whom?

@haros2868

26 күн бұрын

To the subject to comsciousness. It is called subjective experiences not objective. If it didn't have a subject (what many call self) then comsciousness would be a universal field like the electron field and comsciousness would be in a superposition, not to individuals. Without the subject to comsciousness, you cant have subjectivity, and comsciousness is the most subjective thing in existence. I don't know what you don't understand, its simple, I think

@michaelellis6437

26 күн бұрын

@@haros2868 Interesting formulation, though one might conclude that if cons didn't have a subject, it wouldn't exist at all, QFT being entirely irrelevant. I presently view free will as an inherently incoherent concept, resting on a metaphysics that doesn't work. Cons is not a thing, though people talk as though it were, e.g., "if cons didn't have a subject, then..." Igliboo is farkel is facially simple but can lead to 400 years of arguing whether we do or don't have igliboo. The point of the question is that the concept of FW arises from a misidentification of oneself with only one aspect of one's experience. We choose, but never free from our brain and blood. And I confess, there is much I don't understand.

@haros2868

26 күн бұрын

@@michaelellis6437 No, the misconception is deterministm. A miscommunication of causality. Self or not, with subject or not, a thing or a process (which is more likely to be a thing, since during sleep something is DEFINITELY missing) if it is irreducable, it CANT be deterministic on its dynamics. Determenism is the metaphycal stupidity, its by definition a metaphycal assumption for causality, google it, determenism is metaphycs, because it feels simple a lnd coherent it doesn't means its truth, also if the moon was cheese some day it the past it might look more coherent, that doesn't make it real. If you take free will as relying on quantum randonness, its not free. If you take it relying on a purely ghostly soul, not so coherent. But comsciousness definitely exists, so you can't deny its efficacy, nor the fact that its irreducable. If you believe humans are algorithmic meat robots, from the big bang everything is destined, ignoring what caused the deterministic big bang , what was even before (God????). Stop calling free will as metaphycal nonsense, while comsciousness is real, and while you are a determinst, the tables must one day turn to those pathetic determinists - pseudo phylishoper - redditor - ai hype Oxymorons

@haros2868

26 күн бұрын

@@michaelellis6437 KZread deleted my comment again.. determinatism is the miscommunication, a metaphycal assumption about causality! Determenism is metaphycs. Consciousness is free from reductionalism and determenism. If it isn't a universal field

(4:05) *AL: **_"The fact that you don't understand that phenomenon doesn't mean that the most simplistic explanation is all there is."_* ... Leshner is correct. Just because a result can be orchestrated through _simple means_ doesn't mean the resulting output cannot supersede the complexity used in its orchestration. When you choose between chocolate and vanilla, you are *freely choosing* the flavor you personally prefer. That single decision spells the end of the decision-making process. You do not _"choose to choose to choose to choose"_ as that's just semantics-derived nonsense. *Ultimate Irony:* Atheists notoriously gravitate to the Hard Determinism position. The reason why is because their *core belief system* (atheism) compels them to think this way. An existence void of any purpose, meaning, or "free will" coalesces perfectly with the atheistic ideology. ... However, point this out to the atheist, .... and they angerly deny it to the grave! ... So much for their stance that everything is determined, eh?

@JagadguruSvamiVegananda

27 күн бұрын

Well, Slave, we all have our own particular BELIEFS, but ultimately, there exists objective truth, which is not subject to our misconceptions and misunderstandings. One who has transcended mundane, relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. 😇 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

@simonhibbs887

27 күн бұрын

You’re probably right that a lot of atheists tend to be determinists, but are they determinists because they are atheists, or atheists because they are determinists? I think for most atheists it’s a position they eventually come to, rather than a place they start from. Then there are the atheist idealists and dualists that do believe in libertarian free will, several of whom have been interviewed on this channel.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

27 күн бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 *"You’re probably right that a lot of atheists tend to be determinists, but are they determinists because they are atheists, or atheists because they are determinists?"* ... Atheism is a far more simple and wide-spread ideology than Hard Determinism. HD only plays to a select, niche market who like to play word games. *Example:* Using words, I can prove that you're someone else other than who you are. I would think that most atheists became atheists well before they ever even heard of the term hard determinism. The atheist then seeks out anything that can support that core ideology for self-reassurance. HD fits that criterion. ... It's just human nature. *"Then there are the atheist idealists and dualists that do believe in libertarian free will, several of whom have been interviewed on this channel."* ... I know of no atheists who believe in libertarian free will ... not without them having to "redefine terms" somewhere along the way.

@simonhibbs887

27 күн бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Darn those blasted words. On atheist free will, Colin McGinn and John Searle right off the top of my head. This guy seems to fit the bill too, he’s talking straightforward reductionist physicalism but still refuses to agree that decisions therefore have prior causes.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

27 күн бұрын

*"He’s talking straightforward reductionist physicalism but still refuses to agree that decisions therefore have prior causes."* ... That's because "decisions" don't have prior _causes;_ they have prior _influences._ In the end, the *independent, intelligent agent* (you and me) makes the ultimate decision. Only unintelligent agents are 100% subject to prior causes. Otherwise, there would be no difference between the two, and obviously there is. To claim they are the same is to violate the law of noncontradiction. You'd be claiming nonintelligence and intelligence are indistinguishable.

✨✨👍🙌🙏✨✨

We are just playing tennis with the material world, and energy is the ball. ……From mind to matter and back again, our thoughts are physical. Are we able to control our feelings? Can I choose to be happy at the loss of a loved one or feel rage at a cute puppy? No. Will is not free. The very term “freewill” is a contradiction. Some people follow the rabbit hole so far they convince themselves nothing real exists because matter is condensed energy fields. (Funny thing is, no one knows what quantum physics really is, yet use it to argue against determinism) Anyone can debate the fundamental nature of reality by discussing the nature of a quark until the end of time….or argue duality versus materialism ……., but at the end of the day, I’ll bet they’ll flinch in pain if a dentist drills into their molar without numbing; regardless of their sense of willpower. Try exercising your freedom to choose with that sort of condition. That is the power of determinism. Mind is physical. Everything in the universe is physical. A non-physical thing cannot affect physical things. Therefore, thoughts are physical. Physical things affect physical thoughts = physical thoughts affect physical things……..on and on. Drilling into nerves makes you hurt = hurt makes you flinch = flinch makes you move to avoid pain…… We are just playing tennis with the material world, and energy is the ball. ……From mind to matter and back again. To say we have no agency in painful situations but we do have agency in choosing ice cream flavors is just a bunch of “cherry picking hypocrisy.” When are the immutable laws of physics flexible? Does gravity, sometimes, work? Things are either physical or they aren’t. If I can prove a single thought is determined, then ALL thoughts are determined as well. Your thoughts are determined by me…..I am making you think of a⭐️ …..contemplate the fact that the ⭐️ crossed your mind without any control on your part; even if it was only for a moment. -- that was determinism at work.

@haros2868

26 күн бұрын

I observed you are using the same examples again and again "mad to a puppy, happy to a friend death" . These aren't even arguments against free will! These are almost entirely automatic emotional responses. Theres a reason why we say you are more paranoid and have less control under extreme emotions (terror for example) . These aren't even arguments at this point. Prove that consciousness is reducable (comsciousness itself not some hormones that may cause happiness) and you would have a very powerful argument for determinsm. But comsciousness seems to be the most subjective and irreducable thing in existence. During sleep it can completely disappear temporarily. If it was reducable, hence a property of matter, it could never completely disappear because the components that give rise to it are still there with all their properties. Exept if you believe in some Buddhism that we are all one with the universe and God and nirvana stuff. We are isolated material irreducable agents, some very dumb, some wise enough to recognise this fact, either using free will to listen curiosity for knowledge (resisting the temptation to stop tge hard creative ) or some are lucky and born intelligent

@dr_shrinker

26 күн бұрын

@@haros2868you said,” But comsciousness seems to be the most subjective and irreducable thing in existence. During sleep it can completely disappear temporarily.” Well if consciousness is not reducible, how can it disappear when we sleep?

@haros2868

26 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker are you kidding me? If it was reducable, it would not be something fundamentally new, hence the parts of it have it too (neurons and in turn atoms). If it is reducable, it can't disappear, as the atoms of the brain are still there during sleep. It isn't like matter that is consistent and just the sum of the parts. Determinististic things cant really disappear, at least if not thrown into a black hole. I am not falling in a black hole during sleep, my neutrons are intact, and Consciousnes is missing, hence it isn't a reducable property. Thats you're last chance parrot

@dr_shrinker

26 күн бұрын

@@haros2868 my last chance? lol. Thank god. I thought I’d have to educate you all day. But, have it backwards. If it is reducible, it CAN disappear. That’s the definition of reducible. I think you’re confused.

@realitycheck1231

26 күн бұрын

I agree with you concerning the vast majority of people. But if someone can display no flight, fight or freeze response to something fearful, and can subdue a painful reaction to a certain extent, then that person is closer to free will. I dont think the totally have free will, but they are closer to it. Perhaps some very high level Buddhists? The burning monk. kzread.info/dash/bejne/hop519OzfL2xk6Q.htmlsi=p_sWkd_qbzOX-35S

Don't let them fool you. There is no such thing as free will.

@Jinxed007

26 күн бұрын

I knew you were going to say that.

@dr_shrinker

26 күн бұрын

@@Jinxed007because it is determined!

free will when neuron spikes?

green...

the problem exists only if all but one of the options available to free-will were not real... but why even bother with such illusion to begin with 🤔

Well, that was a waste of time, lol.

Leshner appears to contradict himself. At the beginning of the video, he says he doesn't know whether will is free, but at the end he answers "No" when Kuhn asks whether will is determined by physical brain processes (which at the smallest level are well-understood by the known laws of physics). Regarding the question in the Description, "is it fair to change the definition of free will," I say No. It causes unnecessary confusion when people use the same term to mean different things. When someone wants to introduce a different definition, it's appropriate to define one or two (or more) new terms, such as "strong free will" and "weak free will." For example, "weak free will" could mean choice that's unconstrained by duress by another person. In other words, no one is threatening you or something you value to get you to do something you otherwise wouldn't do, and no one is holding you prisoner to limit your range of actions. We'll continue to normally have this "weak free will" for a few more decades, until neuroscientists discover how to reliably control people's thoughts or values on a mass (global) scale.

@simonhibbs887

27 күн бұрын

What is the “original” definition of free will though? If you ask a sample of non-philosopher members of the general public to explain what it means, how many will say anything about “prior causes”? Probably none. They will talk about freedom from coercion and acting in accordance with our own beliefs and preferences. In philosophical circles the term has been highjacked by philosophical libertarians who insist it must mean undetermined by prior causes, but they don’t own the term. I prefer to call their definition libertarian free will. If the general meaning needs qualification, I suggest autonomous free will.

@brothermine2292

27 күн бұрын

>simonhibbs887 : I'm not concerned about which meaning is the original meaning. Perhaps I should have expressed my point differently: Terminology should be uniquely defined (and well-defined), so new terminology should be invented when a new definition is invented, instead of hijacking or sharing older terminology. I don't think it matters what the general non-philosopher public mean by "free will." What matters is the definition(s) being used during a discussion of whether free will exists. By the way, when I google 'libertarian free will' I find more than one definition. Here's one that appears to match what you called the general meaning: "Libertarian free will is basically the concept that, metaphysically and morally, man is an autonomous being." Here's another that's clearly not well-defined: "Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances. Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and physical or naturalistic theories."

@simonhibbs887

27 күн бұрын

@@brothermine2292 The canonical online source often referred to by professional philosophers is the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. I highly recommend it. For example it is the most frequently linked reference in answers on the heavily moderated r/askphilosophy sub, on which only accredited and vetted academic philosophers are allowed to post top level replies.

@brothermine2292

27 күн бұрын

>simonhibbs887 : I've occasionally looked at the SEP, and each time I was disappointed by the amount of jargon in the articles. It seemed like a rabbit hole of near-infinite regress, which I don't have enough time for.

@simonhibbs887

27 күн бұрын

@@brothermine2292 I tracked down sites with the phrases you quoted, and both went on to make it clear libertarian free will is about independence from prior causes. It’s the characteristic aspect of that view in philosophy.

Do dice have free will? It's a ridiculous question. Why? Because dice don't have will, so that means they neither have free will nor non-free will. The question of will is ostensibly a question about consciousness, but not necessarily about ..."human consciousness". What would constitute a "free will"? What kind of consciousness would have a free will? A solipsist? An absurdist? An existentialist, idealist, materialist? A scarab beetle? An octopus? Intelligent consciousness? Or a consciousness without intelligence, just physical ability? It must be an intelligent consciousness to even ask the question. Is that a necessary condition? Necessary but not sufficient? What would make intelligence sufficient? Mere understanding of causation; or transcendence of causation?

@mikel5582

27 күн бұрын

Asking questions means that you're playing the game wrong. Stop worrying about arriving at a rational conclusion and take whatever position feels safe and comforting. Above all, whenever that safe feeling seems shaky, assertively defend it against those pesky people who ask questions that erode your confidence.

@kallianpublico7517

27 күн бұрын

@@mikel5582 Questions don't erode confidence, necessarily. Questions and their answers either hone coherency or reveal coherency as a house built on sand. Questions like these are fun, not pressure. It may well be that an answer to this question will be found when you're not thinking about it. When you're doing something unrelated. Until then harness your linguistic mind and see what it produces. The gobbledygook or logic you exhibit when challenged tells you something about yourself. Something, maybe, that you, or anyone else, didn't know before.

@mikel5582

27 күн бұрын

​@@kallianpublico7517 Yeah, I was already kinda agreeing with you. Question everything, including questioning whether you're asking the right questions. Maybe I need to work on my sarcasm.

@simonhibbs887

27 күн бұрын

I think you’re definitely asking the right questions. I think Inteligence is the ability to rationally evaluate information against a set of priorities and heuristics in order to make decisions intended to achieve a pre-conceived objective. Something like that, anyway.

*"IF"* everything Lawrence Kune is saying is hard determined *"THEN"* Lawrence Kune is an amoeba and everything he is saying is mindless gibberish.

@dr_shrinker

27 күн бұрын

Ironically, if you’re right, then you are also an amoeba as well.

@JohnQPublic11

27 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker --- lol! No, I’m not an amoeba; I’m a highly sentient, spiritual soul, in possession of commanding authoritative GOD-given abilities of objective logical reasoning powers; you guys are the amoeba's reacting to the stimuli of your local environment. See, I just proved you guys lack the reasoning power to think.

I am going to explain the atheist logical fallacy that no atheist understands. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheists talk about the Bible to conclude irrationally the universe was not created by an intelligent entity. Did you understand the error of reasoning? It doesn't follow that because Jesus Christ doesn't exist the universe was not created by an intelligent entity. If you ask atheists why they believe God doesn’t exist and death is the end they will not provide any arguments or evidence and they would answer the burden of proof is on the person claiming the universe was created from an intelligent entity. The proof that the creator exists is the creation. I have explained a deception. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Thank you.

@user-kq6pi7uo4d

27 күн бұрын

Атеизм это болезнь,а не ошибка

@brothermine2292

27 күн бұрын

"The proof the (intelligent) creator exists is the creation." No, that's not a complete proof. To complete it you also need to demonstrate (1) the universe was in fact created, (2) the universe could be created only by a creator that's intelligent, and (3) that creator still exists. While you're at it, you might want to also prove (4) that creator wants everyone to worship it and behave in particular ways it approves, (5) the details of how it wants us to behave, and (6) everyone ought to do what it wants.

@brothermine2292

27 күн бұрын

Most religious people say there is no proof, and instead we must have faith. Are you disagreeing with them?

@james2112-ri4iz

27 күн бұрын

@@brothermine2292I think I know who has the logical fallacy

@skygardener7849

27 күн бұрын

The problem(even psychologically speaking) is right there though. You're saying how can this wonderful universe not have a creator. But then it's even harder to explain how can a creator of this wonderful universe who by definition is even more wonderful than the creation not have been created. So you actually end up making the problem worse. So even psychologically that thinking leads to a contradiction when you think it through